Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No.553/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. M K Ahmed Super Market, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of No.6901, 1/01, 26th Main Road, Income Tax, 9th Block, Jayanagar, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad. Bengaluru-560 069 PAN AACFM 4263D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,Addl. CIT (D.R)
Date of Hearing : 11.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2019
O R D E R PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bangalore dt.24/01/2019. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed quarterly e-TDS return in Form 26Q for the 4th quarter of the F.Y. 2012- 13 belatedly which was subsequently processed by the ACIT (CPC),
2 ITA No.553/Bang/2019 TDS, Ghaziabad vide order dt.7.9.2013 wherein the demand of Rs 15,400 was raised on the assessee towards late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') as well as interest on late payment. Subsequently, the assessee filed the correction statement on 5.2.2017 pursuant to which the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order under Section 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act dated 5.2.2017 wherein the demand relating to interest on late payment was deleted however demand relating to Fees payable under Section 234E of the Act along with the consequent interest under Section 220(2) of the Act was sustained. 3. Against the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee moved the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee contended that no intimation under Section 200A of the Act was ever served on the assessee and the only communication which was received by the assessee was the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act. Hence the assessee has filed the appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) against the levy of fees payable under Section 234E of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee
3 ITA No.553/Bang/2019 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and the relevant finding are contained at paras 4.2 to 44 of the appellate order which reads as under :
4 ITA No.553/Bang/2019
Against the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. It was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that levy
5 ITA No.553/Bang/2019 of fees for late filing of the Quarterly TDS Return under Section 234E of the Act for the FY 2012-13 is not sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (2016) 73 taxman.com 252 (Kar). It was further submitted that the assessee was never served the intimation passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 200A of the Act and only intimation which was received by the assessee was under Section 154 of the Act pursuant to the correction statement filed by the assessee wherein demand relating to late filing under Section 234E has been levied amounting to Rs.15,400 along with interest amounting to Rs.1,152 under Section 220(2) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that given that the levy under Section 234E is not sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra), necessary relief may be granted to the assessee. 5. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the order under appeal is the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act and as far as the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Act is concerned, same is not arising out of the order under Section 154
6 ITA No.553/Bang/2019 of the Act and therefore the contention so advanced by the assessee cannot be accepted. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The limited issue under dispute relates to levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act. The said levy of fees is arising out of intimation dated 7.09.2013 u/s 200A passed by the Assessing officer and which has been reiterated in the intimation passed u/s 154 r/w 200A dated 5.02.2017 and the latter is the impugned intimation which is subject matter of appeal before us. We therefore find that the demand u/s 234E is not arising out of the rectification proceedings which have been initiated by virtue of assessee filing the correction statement and consequent intimation passed by the Assessing officer u/s 154 pursuant to which interest on late payment has been deleted by the Assessing officer. Consequently, we are not going into the merits of levy of late filing fees u/s 234E and the applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court referred supra. The assessee is at liberty, if so advised, to pursue the matter relating to levy of late filing fees as per the original intimation dated 7.09.2013 as per law.
7 ITA No.553/Bang/2019 7. In the result, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th Sept., 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20.09.2019. *Reddy GP Copy to 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4.Pr.CIT 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6.Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore